000376528

In Mill’s book ‘Utilitarianism,’ he seeks to prove that his normative theory on morality,

utilitarianism, which says that an act is morally right if and only if it maximizes net utility for all

affected. In this essay I will walk through Mill’s proof and explain each step along the way in

order to show that it is invalid. There are multiple logical flaws along the way that, in the end,

serve to discredit the proof.

Mill’s proof starts with step (1), the presumption that each person desires his or her own

happiness/pleasure. To understand this statement fully we must first clarify the term desire. Mill

tells us the only proof for desire is that people actually desire, just as a sound is audible because

people hear it. This same concept applies to the terms pleasure and pain. They are strictly

sensory experiences that cannot be described.

This first step entails two of Mill’s key suppositions, one of which is psychological hedonism,

which states that all humans naturally pursue pleasure and seek to avoid pain. Mill also explains

that some pains may ultimately result in pleasure, for example, working a boring job in order to

make a living, and that people take these factors into account. The second key supposition Mill

takes from this statement is that all humans have only one goal in mind, to benefit themselves.

This is referred to as psychological egoism. One last point Mill relies on is the idea that

happiness is the only intrinsic good - meaning that the only thing that is good in and of itself is

happiness, everything else is just instrumentally good because it will cause happiness. Mill

comes to this conclusion by noting that the root of all actions is to produce pleasure. He makes

sure to point out that there are many things easily mistaken for being intrinsically good. Mill’s

example was virtue, for almost everyone seeks to be at least somewhat virtuous. But the reason

for this is not that virtuosity is intrinsically good, it is that virtuosity is instrumentally good. It

can only lead to happiness. Human beings have simply associated virtuosity with happiness.

1
 000376528

This idea of producing happiness is unique to some but not all consequentialists because it looks

only at the end result of an action (not the act itself) to determine its morality. It is also unique to

all act utilitarian’s, which rely on the end result as opposed to the action.

In (2) and (3), Mill simply applies the ‘ought implies can’ principle to (1). This principle

states that if S ought to do an action Y, then S can do Y. In this case, people ought to desire their

own happiness, so therefore they can desire their own happiness.

Step (4) is where Mill makes his biggest mistake. Despite stating that happiness is

intrinsically good, it is not logically possible to conclude that since happiness is desirable it is

also good. What Mill does here in steps (3) and (4) is confuses the definitions of desire. In step

(3), Mill uses the term desire to show that we are capable of desiring. But in step (4), he uses it

to show that a desire is worthy of being desired. Lets reexamine his argument substituting in

these phrases to see how it fails.

(3) If each person is capable of desiring their own happiness,

then each person will desire their own happiness.

(4) If each person’s desire is worthy of being desired by that person,

then each person’s happiness is a good for that person.

What Mills is logically doing is saying ‘If A then B, if C then D. A is true, so D must be true.’

Many things, drugs for example, are very desirable, but that does not make them good. So far

Mill has equated happiness with goodness, but has not equated desirability with goodness. The

reason for this is that desirability is not good, as we have already seen. This is where the proof

fails. But we will assume that this step is indeed valid for the rest of the paper.

2
 000376528

Simple logic (assuming [4] is valid) now leads us through step (5). Once we have concluded

that each person’s happiness is a good for that person, Mill attempts to apply this idea to people

as a whole. Since 100% of all every person’s happiness is a good, wouldn’t it only follow that

people as a whole’s happiness is also a good? But take this as an example. If I say that every

atom weighs nearly nothing, does that mean that my desk, made up of atoms, weighs nearly

nothing? Just because every part of the whole has a characteristic does not mean that the whole

itself has that same characteristic. What this step concerns is the principles of composition.

While in some cases the parts will make up the whole, they will not always make up the whole.

This is another, less critical, flaw in Mill’s proof. But again, we will assume that step (6)

contains a logically valid argument.

Next Mill states step (7), which says that since happiness is a good for the whole, it must be a

criterion for morality. When Mill uses the term ‘criterion for morality,’ what he is relying on is

the idea of an intrinsic good. We have already seen this in previous steps. Happiness is

intrinsically good because it is the root of every action of every human being (with the exception

of the mentally ill). What he means by ‘criterion for morality’ is that happiness, because it is

intrinsically good, must be a foundation of utilitarianism. It is what the entire idea revolves

around. Because mans only true desire is happiness, we must base morality off of happiness.

Mill has not yet proven that happiness is the only criterion for morality.

Due to the fact that Mill’s proof is based on the idea that knowledge is gained through

experience, the experience of pain and pleasure, it would be considered an a posteriori proof.

All this is saying is that Mill’s proof requires sensory experiences, both of desire and pleasure, to

prove that it is correct. The justification of the definition must be based on experience. If no one

were to ever sense pleasure, there would be no reason to center a moral theory around it. This is

3
 000376528

opposite the idea of an a priori theory, which is based off the idea that all humans are born with

some knowledge and that no sensory experience is required to know certain things.

Logically combining (6) and (7) leads to the conclusion (8). This logical step is following the

form of ‘If A is true, then B must be true. A is true, so B must be true.’ What Mill is attempting

to do in these three steps is prove that if every individual desires happiness, the whole of the

individuals must desire happiness as well. We have already seen this cannot be.

Step (9) again relies on the theory of psychological hedonism and psychological egoism. What

Mill does here is applies the theory of psychological egoism, which restricts humans to only

performing desirable activities, to psychological hedonism. This shows us that mankind will

always only seek pleasure and avoid pain. What Mill does in step (10) is applies this idea. We

have already concluded that happiness is a criterion for morality, but after step (9) we can see

that happiness is the only criterion for morality.

But these steps contain another small flaw. In stating that humans can only desire parts of or

means to their own happiness, Mill is taking the standpoint of an ethical egoist. Humans are

naturally obliged, as we can see from step (9), to maximize their own utility. But his idea of

ethical non-egoism states that it is best to maximize net utility. Mill slips up by taking an ethical

egoist standpoint in trying to prove an ethical non-egoist theory.

Now that Mill has proven that happiness is the only criterion for morality he can come to his

conclusion in step (11), which says that nothing other than happiness is a criterion for morality.

Step (12) simply rephrases step (11) to come to step (13), which finally concludes that happiness

is the sole criterion of morality.

While we have seen multiple flaws in Mills logic, including one major fault in equating a

4
 000376528

capable desire to a worthy desire, we have still only disproven Mill’s proof. His normative

theory, utilitarianism, may still be correct. But to revise this proof to make it valid would require

a major reworking of several key steps, some of which may not be possible.